Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Shortlisting from the Clearing House Applicatio...
View graph of relations

Shortlisting from the Clearing House Application Form: is it fit for purpose?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineSpecial issuepeer-review

Published

Standard

Shortlisting from the Clearing House Application Form: is it fit for purpose? / Simpson, Jane; Hemmings, Rachel; Daiches, Anna et al.
In: Psychology, Learning and Teaching, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010, p. 32-36.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineSpecial issuepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Simpson J, Hemmings R, Daiches A, Amor C. Shortlisting from the Clearing House Application Form: is it fit for purpose? Psychology, Learning and Teaching. 2010;9(2):32-36. doi: 10.2304/plat.2010.9.2.32

Author

Bibtex

@article{4bebea8219f8431da3e14b68cb250800,
title = "Shortlisting from the Clearing House Application Form: is it fit for purpose?",
abstract = "Although many clinical psychology courses are now making use of validated selection tools, changes in selection processes are almost entirely focused on the post-shortlisting part of the process. The large numbers of applicants who regularly apply to get on courses has led to a traditional reliance on information supplied on the application forms used by the Clearing House (the organisation responsible for coordinating all applications to British clinical psychology training courses), including the academic and clinical references. Training courses tend to outline minimum entry requirements which are, typically, a 2(i) degree or better, a minimum of six to 12 months{\textquoteright} relevant experience, graduate basis for registration with the British Psychological Society (BPS) and European Union citizenship. These minimum entry requirements enable a first phase screening process to take place. Following this phase a closer analysis of the application form takes place, with most courses assigning candidates scores along various criteria. These criteria are not always explicitly outlined by courses, but courses seem to try to quantify applicants in similar areas. For example, candidates can be rated on qualifications, motivation, realism, experience and references. However, the shortlisting process depends fundamentally on the belief that the information we collect via the application form predicts the best trainees. For example, previous clinical experience is rated highly and usually gains the applicants extra points. Similarly, further academic qualifications such as masters are also privileged. However, the question remains as to how shortlisting can be based on these assumptions when so little evidence exists. While the notion that a standard or baseline is probably important, where is the evidence that these sorts of experiences should be given added value? This article argues that evidence from occupational psychology and our own empirical research at Lancaster suggests the shortlisting component of our selection criteria needs a radical evaluation and overhaul to make it fit for purpose.",
author = "Jane Simpson and Rachel Hemmings and Anna Daiches and Cathy Amor",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.2304/plat.2010.9.2.32",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "32--36",
journal = "Psychology, Learning and Teaching",
publisher = "Symposium Journals Ltd",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shortlisting from the Clearing House Application Form: is it fit for purpose?

AU - Simpson, Jane

AU - Hemmings, Rachel

AU - Daiches, Anna

AU - Amor, Cathy

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Although many clinical psychology courses are now making use of validated selection tools, changes in selection processes are almost entirely focused on the post-shortlisting part of the process. The large numbers of applicants who regularly apply to get on courses has led to a traditional reliance on information supplied on the application forms used by the Clearing House (the organisation responsible for coordinating all applications to British clinical psychology training courses), including the academic and clinical references. Training courses tend to outline minimum entry requirements which are, typically, a 2(i) degree or better, a minimum of six to 12 months’ relevant experience, graduate basis for registration with the British Psychological Society (BPS) and European Union citizenship. These minimum entry requirements enable a first phase screening process to take place. Following this phase a closer analysis of the application form takes place, with most courses assigning candidates scores along various criteria. These criteria are not always explicitly outlined by courses, but courses seem to try to quantify applicants in similar areas. For example, candidates can be rated on qualifications, motivation, realism, experience and references. However, the shortlisting process depends fundamentally on the belief that the information we collect via the application form predicts the best trainees. For example, previous clinical experience is rated highly and usually gains the applicants extra points. Similarly, further academic qualifications such as masters are also privileged. However, the question remains as to how shortlisting can be based on these assumptions when so little evidence exists. While the notion that a standard or baseline is probably important, where is the evidence that these sorts of experiences should be given added value? This article argues that evidence from occupational psychology and our own empirical research at Lancaster suggests the shortlisting component of our selection criteria needs a radical evaluation and overhaul to make it fit for purpose.

AB - Although many clinical psychology courses are now making use of validated selection tools, changes in selection processes are almost entirely focused on the post-shortlisting part of the process. The large numbers of applicants who regularly apply to get on courses has led to a traditional reliance on information supplied on the application forms used by the Clearing House (the organisation responsible for coordinating all applications to British clinical psychology training courses), including the academic and clinical references. Training courses tend to outline minimum entry requirements which are, typically, a 2(i) degree or better, a minimum of six to 12 months’ relevant experience, graduate basis for registration with the British Psychological Society (BPS) and European Union citizenship. These minimum entry requirements enable a first phase screening process to take place. Following this phase a closer analysis of the application form takes place, with most courses assigning candidates scores along various criteria. These criteria are not always explicitly outlined by courses, but courses seem to try to quantify applicants in similar areas. For example, candidates can be rated on qualifications, motivation, realism, experience and references. However, the shortlisting process depends fundamentally on the belief that the information we collect via the application form predicts the best trainees. For example, previous clinical experience is rated highly and usually gains the applicants extra points. Similarly, further academic qualifications such as masters are also privileged. However, the question remains as to how shortlisting can be based on these assumptions when so little evidence exists. While the notion that a standard or baseline is probably important, where is the evidence that these sorts of experiences should be given added value? This article argues that evidence from occupational psychology and our own empirical research at Lancaster suggests the shortlisting component of our selection criteria needs a radical evaluation and overhaul to make it fit for purpose.

U2 - 10.2304/plat.2010.9.2.32

DO - 10.2304/plat.2010.9.2.32

M3 - Special issue

VL - 9

SP - 32

EP - 36

JO - Psychology, Learning and Teaching

JF - Psychology, Learning and Teaching

IS - 2

ER -